7 ms·

"almost hitting pedestrian" It wasn't even close. Look at where the ped is at 12 seconds, compared to the car. It's because he stopped the turn, and straig

"almost hitting pedestrian" It wasn't even close. Look at where the ped is at 12 seconds, compared to the car. It's because he stopped the turn, and straightened the vehicle that the pedestrian stopped and looked up with concern (at 13 seconds). Even if the pedestrian broke out into a full run, they wouldn't have been in any real danger. This sort of close interplay between pedestrians and cars is very common in cities. The concern I have is that the "eye contact" element is lost. When in doubt of another motorists intentions, we make eye contact and look for acknowledgement or an indication of intent. This doesn't exist with FSD. Edit: Some people have pointed out the car wasn't supposed to be turning right which I missed. If that's the case, the situation and my opinion is completely different.

ModernMech 5y ago
Agreed it wasn't close, but it's still not the kind of behavior you'd want to see in a robot car. If I were a passenger in a car where a human driver did this, I would wonder if they were impaired, and I would no longer trust their driving abilities. Tesla's whole selling point is that a) autonomous cars are safer than human drivers b) we are almost there. This clip shows both claims are questionable at the moment.
- emn13 5y ago
  I wasn't close because the driver was paying absurdly close attention. We can't say if it would have been close or not, but there's certainly no hint the car had a handle on the situation, and it's clear to see it was making some kind of mistake, even if possible a non-fatal one.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Yeah. "It probably can't kill anyone if you watch it like a hawk at all times..." wasn't the FSD selling point.
cogman10 5y ago
I agree, but this is probably the worst behavior I've seen of the FSD software. It abruptly tried to do a right turn on a no-right intersection with no warning (map said it was supposed to go straight, it looked like it was going to do that right up to the last second). Putting aside the "almost hitting a pedestrian", this is really dangerous behavior for an autonomous vehicle.
- banana_giraffe 5y ago
  As a human driver, in this area, I've made a right turn there. (Well, not this intersection, the next right turn from it) https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6175579,-122.3456341,3a,90y,136.4h,84.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srX5fQAd13VbXqM3g4OxsOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6175579,-122.3456341,3a,90y,... Even Google Maps has a car turning right here. I've always read those signs that you can't turn right from the left lane. It's confusing, for sure. https://mynorthwest.com/1186128/slalom-seattle-monorail-columns/ https://mynorthwest.com/1186128/slalom-seattle-monorail-colu... This article seems to agree (and bonus, you can slalom through the columns). You can turn so long as you're not crossing lanes.
- antattack 5y ago
  Tesla on Autopilot is not autonomous. I look at current driver assistance systems as human-robot hybrid. Any driver assistance system should be required to be clear in it's intentions to the driver and give time to react, otherwise it's like a wild horse.
  - sleepybrett 5y ago
    it's sold as an 'autopilot' that means 'automatic pilot' that does not imply hybridization, that implies full automation.
    - antattack 5y ago
      I don't know where you get the idea. Even plane autopilot will not land the plane w/o Pilot's supervision. People who don't read manuals put themselves at risk. Even simple systems like Cruise Control carry plenty of warnings that one should be familiar with when operating (from Ford's manual): WARNING: Always pay close attention to changing road conditions when using adaptive cruise control. The system does not replace attentive driving. Failing to pay attention to the road may result in a crash, serious injury or death. WARNING: Adaptive cruise control may not detect stationary or slow moving vehicles below 6 mph (10 km/h). WARNING: Do not use adaptive cruise control on winding roads, in heavy traffic or when the road surface is slippery. This could result in loss of vehicle control, serious injury or death. [and few more, shortened for brevity]
wlesieutre 5y ago
Why did the car want to swerve right in the first place? You can see the route map on the display, it was going straight through this intersection. EDIT - other people are pointing out the "no right turn" sign but I believe that's for cars to the left of the elevated tracks. The sign hanging by the traffic lights indicates the crossing road is one-way to the right, so that turn should be legal from where the Tesla is. But it isn't planning a turn here so I don't think you can say "it would've made a tight turn and cleared the pedestrians." It looks like it has no idea where it's going and could have wanted to make a wide turn into the left lane, or even be swerving far out of its lane and then back in because it interpreted the intersection as something like a lane shift.
brown9-2 5y ago
People aren’t bothered by how close the car came to the pedestrians - it’s the fact that the autopilot was programmed to go in a straight line and at an intersection decided to steer into a crosswalk. Not to mention the fact that it seems entirely legal for a company like Tesla to test such dangerous functionality on public streets with other drivers and pedestrians, with zero permission or regulation.
- rjp0008 5y ago
  > the autopilot was programmed to go in a straight line and at an intersection decided to steer into a crosswalk. Agree this is a weird and very concerning bug. > Not to mention the fact that it seems entirely legal for a company like Tesla to test such dangerous functionality on public streets with other drivers and pedestrians, with zero permission or regulation. This driver seems to be someone who I would be ok with testing this. He's got his hand an inch from the steering wheel and obviously paying attention. I would rather this scenario happen, than Tesla be restricted to no public road access and they just unleash an untested system.
  - sleepybrett 5y ago
    The problem, as I see it, is that the longer driver uses the autopilot feature the less attention they will pay to it as long as it doesn't do something nuts like this. My understanding is that this occurred soon after a new 'beta' update to the autopilot system. I'm not sure how this is surfaced to the user, if you need to opt into this new version etc. My fear is that a new version of the autopilot system could have new bugs introduced that could disrupt the navigation on a route that the user has confidence that the previous version of the autopilot could handle. They commute on route x every day and over time they've gained confidence in the autopilot on that route. This new update however is going to run them into some obstruction due to a bug. That obstruction might be those monorail pylons we see in the seattle video or it might be a crosswalk. A driver who had confidence in the autopilot might be well distracted having confidence in his automation and not be able to correct the situation before tragedy. IMO autopilot should be banned until it can be proved to be 100% safe. I don't think we can get there until roads are outfitted with some kind of beaconing system that sensors in the car can read and cars on the road are potentially networked together cooperatively... and only then to be enabled on roads with those markers/beacons. People in this thread deciding that the system is safe because it's no worse than a drunk driver or student driver are missing the point. We absorb those hazards into the system because they present only a handful agents in the system. Out of 100,000 drivers in a rush hour flow, how many are students and/or drunk.. probably very few. However as teslas keep selling with this feature, our new class of hazard agents keeps going up and up and up. Hell we wouldn't even have to mandate it to be illegal at the political level. Perhaps the insurance industry will do it for us.
staticassertion 5y ago
The car veers pretty aggressively and suddenly. "Almost hitting" or not, this looks dangerous. > This sort of close interplay between pedestrians and cars is very common in cities. Yeah and I'm usually yelling at the idiot that wasn't looking where they were driving.
- antattack 5y ago
  In this case pedestrians waved back to the driver who apologized as they were far away. If they were closer car would have probably stopped as AP stops and slows down near pedestrians.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    When it's not driving straight into them, that is. Which it has done quite a few times.
spullara 5y ago
Early on I was thinking that self-driving cars would have to have some kind of "face" for just this kind of interaction to occur.
paxys 5y ago
Almost hitting is an exaggeration, but making a right turn while pedestrians have started crossing at an intersection is a 100% incorrect (and likely illegal) action. It's concerning to me that the "full self driving" car cannot successfully handle this very common everyday occurrence.
- parineum 5y ago
  That's definitely illegal and definitely happens all the time. Except it usually happens when the pedestrian has already passed the area where you'd turn through or the intersection is enormous and the pedestrian just started crossing the other side. I'd expect FSD to follow the law in this case though.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Going behind pedestrians in a crosswalk is legal in many states. It's universal that you must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, but not universal that you must wait for them to clear the crosswalk.
    - mikestew 5y ago
      Going behind pedestrians in a crosswalk is legal in many states. Not in the state in which this particular Tesla was being driven: "The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device to cross the roadway..." https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235
      - rootusrootus 5y ago
        You left out the rest. "when the pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning"
        5y ago
emn13 5y ago
The pedestrian stopped as soon as they saw the car suddenly veering towards them; not just once the driver intervened, as far as I can tell. Whatever the hypothetical (it certainly might have missed the pedestrian, or made a last second emergency stop) - it suddenly veered towards a pedestrian that was already walking on the road, and that alone is absolutely not OK. Scaring the living daylights out of people isn't acceptable, even if you might not have killed them without an intervention. And let's be fair, if the pedestrian had not paid attention, and the driver neither, this certainly could have lead to an accident. Even if it were "just" an unexpected emergency stop; that itself isn't without risk.
mzs 5y ago
You must yield to pedestrian in crosswalk, how far away the pedestrian is does not matter.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  But what does "yield" mean? It means slow down, and proceed when it's safe to do so. If a pedestrian starts crossing a 4-lane road and I have time to turn across his path without making him stop or deviate, then I can proceed safely and I think I've met the definition of "yield"
  - tzs 5y ago
    In Washington, where the video was recorded, the rule is that you must stop and remain stopped as long as there are pedestrians in the crosswalk in in your half of the roadway or within one lane of your half of the roadway. "Half of the roadway" is defined as all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction. In the case of a one-way road such as the one in the video "half of the roadway" is the whole road. In your 4-lane hypothetical, if there are two lanes in each direction you can drive through the crosswalk if the pedestrian is in the farthest away opposite direction lane from the lane you are in. In a 4-lane road with 1 lane in one direction and 3 in the other, you can drive through if you are in that 1 and the pedestrian is in the farthest 2 away from you. If you are in one of the 3 going the other way, you have to stop no matter which lane they are in, because they are either in your half (the 3 lanes going your direction), or within 1 lane of your half.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      It is interesting how different the law is from behavior. Walking through Seattle, I would not expect that this was the law considering how often people will cross in front of and behind you (both of which I’m fine with).
      - sleepybrett 5y ago
        It's true that there are laws and enforcement, but an automated system needs to obey the laws. Anything else is a judgement and machines shouldn't be making judgements when lives are on the line.
dgudkov 5y ago
>It wasn't even close. Apparently, it's not what the pedestrian thought.
mikestew 5y ago
The concern I have is that the "eye contact" element is lost. As a motorcyclist, runner, and cyclist, I can tell you that drivers will look you right in the eye as they pull out in front of you. we make eye contact and look for acknowledgement or an indication of intent. That behavior stands a good chance of getting one killed or hurt, especially in Seattle, the land of "oh, no, you go first..." Look at the wheels, not the eyes. The wheels don't lie.
- sleepybrett 5y ago
  As a seldom bicyclist I've seen this as well. But it's gotta be a lot less frequent to see a driver make eye contact and then proceed to almost kill you versus one that yields. Even as a seldom bicyclist (and as a driver even) if I'm approaching a four-way yield if I can't get eye contact with someone else approaching the intersection I'll just yield to them by default.
kzrdude 5y ago
The car is going way too fast towards the crossing. No safe driver pretends to drive straight and then suddenly tries turn and sneak in front of pedestrians on a crossing. A person driving that way is a jerk :)
mcguire 5y ago
How close are Tesla's programmed to come to pedestrians? An obviously safe distance, or an "I didn't actually touch you" distance? I've been mostly looking at the OSD---it doesn't look like the car noticed the pedestrians until after the driver had taken manual control.

ModernMech 5y ago

Agreed it wasn't close, but it's still not the kind of behavior you'd want to see in a robot car. If I were a passenger in a car where a human driver did this, I would wonder if they were impaired, and I would no longer trust their driving abilities. Tesla's whole selling point is that a) autonomous cars are safer than human drivers b) we are almost there. This clip shows both claims are questionable at the moment.

emn13 5y ago
I wasn't close because the driver was paying absurdly close attention. We can't say if it would have been close or not, but there's certainly no hint the car had a handle on the situation, and it's clear to see it was making some kind of mistake, even if possible a non-fatal one.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Yeah. "It probably can't kill anyone if you watch it like a hawk at all times..." wasn't the FSD selling point.

cogman10 5y ago

I agree, but this is probably the worst behavior I've seen of the FSD software. It abruptly tried to do a right turn on a no-right intersection with no warning (map said it was supposed to go straight, it looked like it was going to do that right up to the last second). Putting aside the "almost hitting a pedestrian", this is really dangerous behavior for an autonomous vehicle.

banana_giraffe 5y ago
As a human driver, in this area, I've made a right turn there. (Well, not this intersection, the next right turn from it) https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6175579,-122.3456341,3a,90y,136.4h,84.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srX5fQAd13VbXqM3g4OxsOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6175579,-122.3456341,3a,90y,... Even Google Maps has a car turning right here. I've always read those signs that you can't turn right from the left lane. It's confusing, for sure. https://mynorthwest.com/1186128/slalom-seattle-monorail-columns/ https://mynorthwest.com/1186128/slalom-seattle-monorail-colu... This article seems to agree (and bonus, you can slalom through the columns). You can turn so long as you're not crossing lanes.
antattack 5y ago
Tesla on Autopilot is not autonomous. I look at current driver assistance systems as human-robot hybrid. Any driver assistance system should be required to be clear in it's intentions to the driver and give time to react, otherwise it's like a wild horse.
- sleepybrett 5y ago
  it's sold as an 'autopilot' that means 'automatic pilot' that does not imply hybridization, that implies full automation.
  - antattack 5y ago
    I don't know where you get the idea. Even plane autopilot will not land the plane w/o Pilot's supervision. People who don't read manuals put themselves at risk. Even simple systems like Cruise Control carry plenty of warnings that one should be familiar with when operating (from Ford's manual): WARNING: Always pay close attention to changing road conditions when using adaptive cruise control. The system does not replace attentive driving. Failing to pay attention to the road may result in a crash, serious injury or death. WARNING: Adaptive cruise control may not detect stationary or slow moving vehicles below 6 mph (10 km/h). WARNING: Do not use adaptive cruise control on winding roads, in heavy traffic or when the road surface is slippery. This could result in loss of vehicle control, serious injury or death. [and few more, shortened for brevity]

wlesieutre 5y ago

Why did the car want to swerve right in the first place? You can see the route map on the display, it was going straight through this intersection. EDIT - other people are pointing out the "no right turn" sign but I believe that's for cars to the left of the elevated tracks. The sign hanging by the traffic lights indicates the crossing road is one-way to the right, so that turn should be legal from where the Tesla is. But it isn't planning a turn here so I don't think you can say "it would've made a tight turn and cleared the pedestrians." It looks like it has no idea where it's going and could have wanted to make a wide turn into the left lane, or even be swerving far out of its lane and then back in because it interpreted the intersection as something like a lane shift.

brown9-2 5y ago

People aren’t bothered by how close the car came to the pedestrians - it’s the fact that the autopilot was programmed to go in a straight line and at an intersection decided to steer into a crosswalk. Not to mention the fact that it seems entirely legal for a company like Tesla to test such dangerous functionality on public streets with other drivers and pedestrians, with zero permission or regulation.

rjp0008 5y ago
> the autopilot was programmed to go in a straight line and at an intersection decided to steer into a crosswalk. Agree this is a weird and very concerning bug. > Not to mention the fact that it seems entirely legal for a company like Tesla to test such dangerous functionality on public streets with other drivers and pedestrians, with zero permission or regulation. This driver seems to be someone who I would be ok with testing this. He's got his hand an inch from the steering wheel and obviously paying attention. I would rather this scenario happen, than Tesla be restricted to no public road access and they just unleash an untested system.
- sleepybrett 5y ago
  The problem, as I see it, is that the longer driver uses the autopilot feature the less attention they will pay to it as long as it doesn't do something nuts like this. My understanding is that this occurred soon after a new 'beta' update to the autopilot system. I'm not sure how this is surfaced to the user, if you need to opt into this new version etc. My fear is that a new version of the autopilot system could have new bugs introduced that could disrupt the navigation on a route that the user has confidence that the previous version of the autopilot could handle. They commute on route x every day and over time they've gained confidence in the autopilot on that route. This new update however is going to run them into some obstruction due to a bug. That obstruction might be those monorail pylons we see in the seattle video or it might be a crosswalk. A driver who had confidence in the autopilot might be well distracted having confidence in his automation and not be able to correct the situation before tragedy. IMO autopilot should be banned until it can be proved to be 100% safe. I don't think we can get there until roads are outfitted with some kind of beaconing system that sensors in the car can read and cars on the road are potentially networked together cooperatively... and only then to be enabled on roads with those markers/beacons. People in this thread deciding that the system is safe because it's no worse than a drunk driver or student driver are missing the point. We absorb those hazards into the system because they present only a handful agents in the system. Out of 100,000 drivers in a rush hour flow, how many are students and/or drunk.. probably very few. However as teslas keep selling with this feature, our new class of hazard agents keeps going up and up and up. Hell we wouldn't even have to mandate it to be illegal at the political level. Perhaps the insurance industry will do it for us.

staticassertion 5y ago

The car veers pretty aggressively and suddenly. "Almost hitting" or not, this looks dangerous. > This sort of close interplay between pedestrians and cars is very common in cities. Yeah and I'm usually yelling at the idiot that wasn't looking where they were driving.

antattack 5y ago
In this case pedestrians waved back to the driver who apologized as they were far away. If they were closer car would have probably stopped as AP stops and slows down near pedestrians.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  When it's not driving straight into them, that is. Which it has done quite a few times.

spullara 5y ago

Early on I was thinking that self-driving cars would have to have some kind of "face" for just this kind of interaction to occur.

paxys 5y ago

Almost hitting is an exaggeration, but making a right turn while pedestrians have started crossing at an intersection is a 100% incorrect (and likely illegal) action. It's concerning to me that the "full self driving" car cannot successfully handle this very common everyday occurrence.

parineum 5y ago
That's definitely illegal and definitely happens all the time. Except it usually happens when the pedestrian has already passed the area where you'd turn through or the intersection is enormous and the pedestrian just started crossing the other side. I'd expect FSD to follow the law in this case though.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  Going behind pedestrians in a crosswalk is legal in many states. It's universal that you must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, but not universal that you must wait for them to clear the crosswalk.
  - mikestew 5y ago
    Going behind pedestrians in a crosswalk is legal in many states. Not in the state in which this particular Tesla was being driven: "The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device to cross the roadway..." https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      You left out the rest. "when the pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning"
      - 5y ago

emn13 5y ago

The pedestrian stopped as soon as they saw the car suddenly veering towards them; not just once the driver intervened, as far as I can tell. Whatever the hypothetical (it certainly might have missed the pedestrian, or made a last second emergency stop) - it suddenly veered towards a pedestrian that was already walking on the road, and that alone is absolutely not OK. Scaring the living daylights out of people isn't acceptable, even if you might not have killed them without an intervention. And let's be fair, if the pedestrian had not paid attention, and the driver neither, this certainly could have lead to an accident. Even if it were "just" an unexpected emergency stop; that itself isn't without risk.

mzs 5y ago

You must yield to pedestrian in crosswalk, how far away the pedestrian is does not matter.

throwawayboise 5y ago
But what does "yield" mean? It means slow down, and proceed when it's safe to do so. If a pedestrian starts crossing a 4-lane road and I have time to turn across his path without making him stop or deviate, then I can proceed safely and I think I've met the definition of "yield"
- tzs 5y ago
  In Washington, where the video was recorded, the rule is that you must stop and remain stopped as long as there are pedestrians in the crosswalk in in your half of the roadway or within one lane of your half of the roadway. "Half of the roadway" is defined as all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction. In the case of a one-way road such as the one in the video "half of the roadway" is the whole road. In your 4-lane hypothetical, if there are two lanes in each direction you can drive through the crosswalk if the pedestrian is in the farthest away opposite direction lane from the lane you are in. In a 4-lane road with 1 lane in one direction and 3 in the other, you can drive through if you are in that 1 and the pedestrian is in the farthest 2 away from you. If you are in one of the 3 going the other way, you have to stop no matter which lane they are in, because they are either in your half (the 3 lanes going your direction), or within 1 lane of your half.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    It is interesting how different the law is from behavior. Walking through Seattle, I would not expect that this was the law considering how often people will cross in front of and behind you (both of which I’m fine with).
    - sleepybrett 5y ago
      It's true that there are laws and enforcement, but an automated system needs to obey the laws. Anything else is a judgement and machines shouldn't be making judgements when lives are on the line.

dgudkov 5y ago

>It wasn't even close. Apparently, it's not what the pedestrian thought.

mikestew 5y ago

The concern I have is that the "eye contact" element is lost. As a motorcyclist, runner, and cyclist, I can tell you that drivers will look you right in the eye as they pull out in front of you. we make eye contact and look for acknowledgement or an indication of intent. That behavior stands a good chance of getting one killed or hurt, especially in Seattle, the land of "oh, no, you go first..." Look at the wheels, not the eyes. The wheels don't lie.

sleepybrett 5y ago
As a seldom bicyclist I've seen this as well. But it's gotta be a lot less frequent to see a driver make eye contact and then proceed to almost kill you versus one that yields. Even as a seldom bicyclist (and as a driver even) if I'm approaching a four-way yield if I can't get eye contact with someone else approaching the intersection I'll just yield to them by default.

kzrdude 5y ago

The car is going way too fast towards the crossing. No safe driver pretends to drive straight and then suddenly tries turn and sneak in front of pedestrians on a crossing. A person driving that way is a jerk :)

mcguire 5y ago

How close are Tesla's programmed to come to pedestrians? An obviously safe distance, or an "I didn't actually touch you" distance? I've been mostly looking at the OSD---it doesn't look like the car noticed the pedestrians until after the driver had taken manual control.